Tag Archives: subsidiarity

Featured

My wife and I recently attended an info-dinner given by a nationally known financial planning company for invited clients. Near the end of the evening, one of the attendees at our table repeatedly mentioned how improper it was for those us attending a special dinner we didn’t have to pay for when so many in the U.S. and the world were struggling to survive. To comfort him, several of us agreed with his assertion that the world contained enough wealth to sustain the entire population, but that the problem was how to make it equitable.

He continued to wring his hands verbally about how those of us at the table, living in excess, were part the problem. I commented that it would be a great help if our federal government would stop pushing religious groups out the adoption business, hospitals and schools because they did not subscribe to the new political correctness being enforced. These organizations not only have done good work for centuries, but do it more economically than big government can.

His continued restrained jabs at our supposed lack of concern for the less fortunate changed our responses. A couple of us described how we and relatives were assisting disadvantaged people through contacts in our country and the world in charitable projects to alleviate poverty. These efforts included not just significant financial assistance, considering our modest means, but actual labor to help those in need.

Unfortunately, he was not mollified by any of this. Finally, to my surprise, my otherwise silent wife asked him what he was doing to help others since he seemed so passionate about this subject. After some typical liberal avoidance of the issue, he said he was promoting awareness. But what was he actually doing to be part of the solution? In the absence of anything specific, it was clear that he was for big government to solve these inequities. This idea was cemented with his question after I reminded him that the success of getting the colonies to agree to a federal constitution was contingent on the assurance that states’ rights would still exist. He then asked me how much our nation’s population had increased since then. I correctly stated that it went from three million to 320 million. His implication was that greater size required great government intervention.

Subsidiarity, not Big Brother

The Left loves concentration of power at the top ostensibly because those of us at the lower levels are incapable. History proves the error of this strategy because:

“… Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity [emphasis retained], according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help co-ordinate its activity within the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good’… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention… In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies… The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.” 1,2

How Does This Relate to the New Federal Budget?

President Trump’s federal budget proposal is expected to be released this coming Tuesday (May 23). Included in it will be some budget cuts as the federal deficit begins to be addressed. The safest bet is that there will be considerable howling, especially from Democrats, as a result of some decreases in funding of some social programs.

Subsidiarity teaches that this is not a crisis or necessarily inappropriate. Much has been and should be done at the state and local level – and this includes us average citizens, not just “the government.”

Going back to the discussion at the financial planning dinner, what states’ residents are doing the most to make the world a better place through their own initiative? According to recent data, these states were the most charitable based on income tax filing deductions (as a percentage of income) and would not reflect aid to family members and friends in need:

Utah 6.6%

Mississippi 5.0%

Alabama 4.8%

Tennessee 4,5%

Georgia 4.2%

South Carolina 4.1%

Idaho 4.0%

Oklahoma 3.9%

Arkansas 3.9%

North Carolina 3.6%

Liberal states aren’t present in this list. Adding to the Left’s reputation for wanting the federal government take all of the responsibility, New Hampshire was the lowest and Maine and Vermont were among the lowest.3 While some may believe that this is because conservatives are simply wealthier or more religious (at least true on the second part), the point is that for the 2012 election, “The top 17 states for rate of giving all went for Romney.” 4

The take away from this: Liberals, with their willingness to spend others’ money instead of their own, may not complain about budget cuts until they match the generosity of their supposedly less informed non-liberal acquaintances.

1 – Taken from paragraphs 1883, 1885, 1894 and 2209 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing, November, 2013.

2 – A word about “the common good.” It is not about majority rule or what helps the most people, but “By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’ The common good concerns the life of all… The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.” Ibid, from paragraphs 1906 and 1925.

Featured

It’s time we recognize the three strikes which have always existed against having the federal Dept. of Education and to push for its elimination.

The Constitution

“Roger Pilon, constitutional scholar has said: ‘From beginning to end the [Constitution] never mentioned the word ‘education.’”1

“Why then was the Department of Education created? President Jimmy Carter, during whose watch the new department came into being, had promised the department to the National Education Association. Contemporary editorials in both the New York Times and the Washington Post acknowledged that the creation of the department was mainly in response to pressure from the NEA. According to Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal (DN.Y.), Congress went along with the plan out of ‘not wanting to embarrass the president.’ Also, many members of Congress had made promises to educators in their home districts to support the new department.”2

“Subsidiarity”

This concept states that decisions should always be made at the lowest possible level, as described by:

“Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”3

(To clarify the often misrepresented “common good”:
“The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.”4)

Parents’ Rights with Regard to Educating Their Children

“Parents are the principal and first educators of their children… ‘The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.’… Parents should teach their children to subordinate the ‘material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.’… The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of the spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.”5

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen: “It is a great fallacy for parents to believe that the education of their children depends on the school. The school is not the primary educator, but the secondary; its authority to teach the children is delegated by the parents, the right inherent in the father and the mother. Nor is the school ever a substitute for the parents.”6

Conclusion: This is no justification for a federal department of education. Just because this mistake is almost forty years old is not a reason for its continuation. Decisions involving education must be kept at the state and local level so that parents’ can keep a close watch of developments as is their prerogative. When this occurs, we don’t have to deal with intrusions like Common Core – which was not developed by the states as it claims to have been. (See the 5-part series on Common Core published by The Ohio Conservative Review in March 2015.)

Nor will school districts which are located in areas holding true to timeless values and proven science have to defend themselves against: “The U.S. Department of Education will tell school districts Friday that federal law requires them to allow students to use restrooms and locker rooms ‘consistent with their gender identity.’”7

These edicts are made despite: “Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is ‘biologically impossible,’ and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder… he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically… Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”8

The net result is: education must be kept at the state and local levels to allow decision-making by those closest to its effects, local parents and educators. Federal control takes away accountability and has shown itself to be prone to enforcing social engineering without opposition.

Featured

Am pro-life and know that all lives matter :“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense… (The Church) makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society… The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation… These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do represent a concession made by society and the state…” 1Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia: ““Black lives matter because all lives matter — beginning with the poor and marginalized, but including the men and women of all races who put their lives on the line to protect the whole community.”2

Want immigration policies which join compassion and common sense:

“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin…Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” 3“Family‐based Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.”4Pope Benedict XVI: “Every state has the right to regulate migration and to enact policies dictated by the general requirements of the common good, albeit always in safeguarding respect for the dignity of each human person.”5

Understand that marriage did not come from the state; therefore, cannot be defined by the state:

“The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman , free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent…”“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law… Under no circumstances can they be approved… The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity… Homosexual persons are called to chastity…”6

Believe that the government should only do for us what we cannot do for ourselves:

“Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention.”7“In effect, the federal government has underwritten massive irresponsibility on the part of low-income fathers. They don’t need to act responsibly because the federal government has woven together a massive financial assistance system for single mothers with kids. The result is that multiple generations of low-income Americans have now grown up in neighborhoods almost entirely bereft of a responsible male presence… In fact, spending on these programs has exploded over the past three decades. Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution recently testified that spending on the ten largest federal programs for the poor increased from $126 billion in 1980 to $626 billion in 2011. That’s a $500 billion jump in spending, in real terms (after controlling for inflation). The idea that the entirety of this massive run-up in outlays is off-limits and should not be subject to budgetary scrutiny defies common sense.”8

Know that freedom of religion does not mean that the practice of faith is to be held hostage inside church walls:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits…”
“Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order…”
“Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word…”9

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen: “If by ‘interference in politics’ is meant the interference by the clergy in the political realm of the State, the Church is unalterably opposed to it, for the Church teaches that the State is supreme in the temporal order. But when politics ceases to be politics and begins to be a religion, when it claims supremacy over the soul of man, when it reduces him to a grape for the sake of the wine of Moloch, when it denied both the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, when it competes with religion on its own ground, the immortal soul that is destined for God, then religion protests. And when it does, its protest is not against politics but against a counter religion that is anti-religious.”10

6. Understand that contraceptives, in vitro fertilization and human cloning are contrary to the dignity of human life because they relegate human reproduction to mere animal breeding:

— Contraception —“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).11

“Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection… The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character.”12

— In Vitro Fertilization —

“It is quite legitimate, indeed praiseworthy, to try to find ways to overcome infertility. The problem causes great pain and anguish for many married couples. Since children are a wonderful gift of marriage, it is a good thing to try to overcome the obstacles which prevent children from being conceived and born… But the Bible tells us there are limits to acceptable methods for conceiving a child. Recall the story of Noah’s unmarried daughters who tried to get their father drunk so that they might have children by him! Obviously not any means can be used to achieve pregnancy… Obviously, IVF eliminatesthe marriage act as the means of achieving pregnancy, instead of helpingit achieve this natural end. The new life is not engendered through an act of love between husband and wife, but by a laboratory procedure performed by doctors or technicians. Husband and wife are merely sources for the “raw materials” of egg and sperm, which are later manipulated by a technician to cause the sperm to fertilize the egg. Not infrequently, “donor” eggs or sperm are used. This means that the genetic father or mother of the child could well be someone from outside the marriage. .. But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise. Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb. The others are simply discarded or used for experiments. This is a terrible offense against human life. While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process… Never are they to be used as a means to an end, not even to satisfy the deepest wishes of an infertile couple. Husbands and wives “make love,” they do not “make babies.” They give expression to their love for one another, and a child may or may not be engendered by that act of love. The marital act is not a manufacturing process, and children are not products.”13

— Cloning —

“There are a number of reasons why someone would try to engender a new human life through cloning. None would be morally legitimate. For example, a couple may want to use a cell from a dying child to clone another baby as a way of perpetuating the life of the first child. Obviously, this would not be a continuation of the dying child, but the bringing into being of a new child. The dying child would become the “progenitor” of a new life without having agreed to it; the new child would not be treated as a unique individual with his or her own identity, but as an extension of another person.

A man or woman might also want to have a baby without getting married or involving a parent of the opposite sex. Some homosexual people have said that cloning would be a perfect way to have children, because they would not have to marry someone of the opposite sex. This would be terribly unfair to the child, depriving him or her of a natural father and mother… Most disturbing of all, some researchers want to use cloning to create human beings solely for experimentation and destruction. They propose to supply genetically matched tissues for treating various diseases by making human embryos from patients’ body cells, then dissecting these developing embryos for their “spare parts.”13

7. The first responsibility of educating children goes to the parents. The parents allow the state to educate their children, not vice versa. Therefore, education policies should be made at the state and local level, not federal:

“Parents are the principal and first educators of their children… ‘The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.’… Parents should teach their children to subordinate the ‘material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.’… The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of the spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.” 14

“In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.”15

“Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education, and the use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the right of parents are violated, if their children are forced to attend lessons or instructions which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs, or if a single system of education, from which all religious formation is excluded, is imposed upon all.”16

— Given this, the problem is not with Catholicism, but with the group more accurately called “regressive.”

(emphases in the above quotes were retained from the originals, not added)

10 – “The Quotable Fulton Sheen,” edited by George J. Marlin, Richard P. Rabatin and John L. Swan, Doubleday, New York, 1989. Quote was found in “Characters of the Passion, New York. P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1946.

Evil’s dislike for Good is not restricted to the realm of the supernatural. The Earth has been a battleground since our most distant ancestors with consciences came into being. For people of faith, these wars will continue until the Second Coming. For skeptics, it could last until the sun becomes a red giant and overtakes the first three planets, including ours. Either way, it will be a long struggle.

Many Good vs. Evil confrontations are obvious. Organized crime, neighborhood gangs and Islamic jihadists are clear examples of those who attack innocent people. However, the colliding political philosophies of small vs. big government are part of an overlooked venue. Striving for big government unwittingly puts many on the side of the control freak who was bounced from Heaven; thus, creating Hell.

Respect for Human Life Creates Two Sides of the Battle

A key principle around which sides are taken is respect for the dignity of human life. Government intervention should be limited to doing for individuals what they have a right to do for themselves, but cannot.1 Assistance ought to be given where it is truly necessary. Taxpayer funds should be available to provide the basics of life for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

But it must not also promote, unintentionally or otherwise, the breakup of the family as many of the War on Poverty programs have done over the last half-century.2

It also means that tax money should not arbitrarily fund some private startup industries just because they happen to be a favorite of someone in power (e.g. Solyndra).3 In addition, there are government intrusions which force communities to accept government subsidized housing.4

European Union Ruling Class is Power Happy

Overbearing control of government is seen in many ways. Mandating that member nations take unreasonable security risks by the arbitrary and negligent opening of national borders was the main reason the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union in order to restore its rightful sovereignty. The EU ruling elites also find ways to control the trivial as well as the big picture. They determined which tea pots and toasters they considered environmentally acceptable and, therefore, permitted to be used in the home.

Trivializing Human Life in the U.S.

The more massive the exercise of control, the more it aligns with Evil. (The word “evil” may have fallen out of favor with the self-proclaimed enlightened. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make it cease to exist.)

In our country, the creeping vine of mega-government has long since crossed the line from Good to its hellish opposite. Legalizing the killing of unborn babies under the ironic claim of “women’s health” has been more devastating to both mother and baby than the pro-death crowd is willing to admit.5

Trivializing human life has surreptitiously led to relegating its status to mere animal life in the lab. In vitro fertilization/ genetic modification and surrogate motherhood are just two examples of breeding human life to serve our wishes as we do thoroughbred horses or cattle. Discarding unwanted human embryos used in stem cell experiments causes less anxiety for researchers than getting rid of weeds in their carefully manicured gardens.

Those of faith understand that we are to have humane dominion over animal life, but not dominion over human life. That belongs exclusively to the Author of Life Himself.

State Elevating Itself Over the Church

The unwarranted intrusion of Big Government extends to trying to force religious orders and organizations to comply with the contraceptive/ abortifacient mandate of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). For these in power, it’s not sufficient that our tax dollars are used for purposes which we have an inalienable right to object to. Rather, the Obama Administration will not be satisfied unless we materially participate in the evil by giving our consent to a third party to carry out his control of human reproduction — which is not his to control in the first place. It’s the 21st century version of the Romans who threatened early Christians with severe consequences if they didn’t offer “just a little incense” to Roman idols in order to satisfy their political leaders.6

Broad Range of Government Dominance Over Citizens

Modern Big Government has reached new lows with a brazen insult to Natural Law. Citizens who understand the timeless irrevocable truth that a valid marriage can only exist between one man and one woman are being required to provide ceremonial items for same-sex “marriages.” While religious liberty must never be used to justify denying anyone the basics of life such as food, housing, medical care, employment, etc., it must not be dismissed in favor of the sham, known in politically correct circles as “tolerance” or “inclusiveness.”

These are only a few of the headlining points of concern. Requisite to the ultimate control (aka “possession”) of people involves intervention in the smaller details of daily life as well. Mundane items such as kitchen utensils in the EU have already been mentioned. It has also spread from the micro-managing of limiting the size of soft drinks in New York City to the insulting requiring of law-abiding citizens of Kentucky to have their urine tested annually – and at their expense – to ensure they are consuming specific prescriptions instead of selling them illegally.7

Where Will This Lead?

The Prince of Darkness would be pleased with these displays of coercion. The “religion” of secular humanism has set itself against the religion of eternal origins, mimicking the unsurpassed failure of the confrontation the Father of Lies had with the Creator before the universe existed.

God grants free will and proponents of small government defend it. On the other hand, it drives Satan – and perpetrators of oppressing Big Government, crazy. Being a control freak is an indication of a severe disorder. Why would the Left want to have goals which parallel those of the infamous fallen angel? Aiming for world domination now risks eternal disaster later.

1 – “In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.” Paragraph 1894 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Twenty-fifth printing; November, 2013.

4 – “Under the new plan, residents from low-income neighborhoods would be placed all around Baltimore County, essentially integrating the poor among wealthier families.”
“Studies indicate doing cluster in one area is not successful,” said Tony Fugett, president of the Baltimore County NAACP. “The hope is that the units would be dispersed throughout the county.”

Yesterday’s historic decision by the British to leave the European Union brings hope to those who oppose the ever encroaching arm of mega-government.

It was a courageous action in the face of warnings from Prime Minister David Cameron that such a move would endanger their economy and their ability to defeat ISIS (as if the EU was doing a good job in these areas!). It was also a satisfying snub of our President’s attempts to intimidate them into following the liberal agenda of increasing big government’s oppression over personal freedoms.1

Big governments aren’t the answer to big problems, they are often the source of the problems.2,3 Many hope that this vote to leave will encourage other EU nations, who are tired of the elite ruling class in Brussels calling the shots, to do the same.

It’s time that various peoples get their countries back!…. Does this sound familiar? 🙂

3 – “Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’” Paragraph 1883 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second addition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000.

Speaking of “common good” – “The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.” Paragraph 1925, Ibid.

Many activists and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have defined their version of a “living wage” to be a minimum of $15 per hour.1 Unfortunately, this cause gained some momentum last year as “Fourteen cities, counties and states approved a $15 minimum wage through local laws, executive orders and other means in 2015.”2

Cost of Living Varies Widely Among the States

A national minimum wage of this magnitude makes the careless assumption that the cost of living is relatively equal across our country. Not the case!

For 2015, the cost of living in California and New York was close to 35% above the mean for all states.3 For an “average” state such as Florida, it only takes $11.10 per hour to create the same economic climate for an employee as $15 does in California and New York. Why should Florida be forced to effectively pay nearly $4 per hour more for the same work?

The absurdity is worse for states with below average costs of living. Mississippi’s was 16.5% below the U.S. mean for last year. A citizen of the Magnolia State would do as well on $9.28 per hour as his counterparts in California or New York would do on $15. Requiring Mississippi to have a $15 minimum is as ridiculous as pushing California and New York to $24.25 — a guaranteed method of raising machine employment at the expense of humans.

States Are Different Despite Simplistic Liberal Beliefs

For decades, the Left has confused equality with being identical. The concept of a national minimum wage is just one of their futile attempts at creating fairness by legislating sameness among the inherently different. Some national policies are unwise. For at least two millennia, it has been shown repeatedly that the best policies result when problem solving occurs at the lowest effective level.4,5

The U.S., with its diversity of geography, cultures, economic climates, etc., does not lend itself well to many across-the-board mandates because they can often be destructive. A national minimum wage of $15 per hour is one of them.

4 – “… Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity [emphasis retained], according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good’… The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention…” — excerpts from paragraphs 1883 and 1885 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, March 2000.

5 – So as to avoid confusing the real meaning of “common good” with the one currently in vogue (that it’s whatever benefits the most, even at the expense of individuals): “The common good comprises ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily… The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the groups and of its member.” Paragraphs 1924 and 1925, Ibid.

For a term which has existed for almost 2,000 years, what constitutes a “Christian” has somehow become confusing to outsiders and even to many who think of themselves as being Christian. The recent election has made this painfully evident.

A specific example of this surprising misunderstanding appeared in a letter to the editor in the Monday, November 12, 2012 edition of the Bradenton (FL) Herald. The writer, Carol Gazell of Bradenton, stressed that President Obama had won re-election because he appealed to a majority of many different demographic groups, which in fact he did. But she he went on to say that, “We are no longer a nation inhabited by primarily white Christians. As much as conservatives may not like it, that is the fact, and there’s no going back to those days.” She would fit in with those who believe that the Obama win represented a victory over what they have named the “Christian right.” Their rhetoric claims that those who hold these views are a minority who belong to an earlier time and are no longer relevant.

It is true that the various groups of “minorities” are, as a whole, the new majority. Fair-minded individuals are not paranoid about this reality because this is merely a continuation of the “melting pot” phenomenon which created our great nation. However, the troubling point is her implication that white Christians have a different set of priorities from non-white Christians. This is contradictory. A true Christian must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church He established to guide us until His second coming. These teachings transcend race. In fact, the equality of all races in the eyes of God is a key Christian tenet.

The real Christian strives for the good in this life and the hereafter for everyone, not just for him or herself. To achieve “good,” the genuine Christian will, among other virtues:

1)champion the right to life of all human beings from conception until natural death2) protect the sanctity of marriage which creates the family [basic unit of civilized society]3) ensure the inalienable right of freedom of religion, which automatically includes its practice.

Such values will be encouraged in a just society, not disparaged.

This brings us to the dichotomy of the last two general elections. How is it possible for so many “Christians” (and sadly, a majority of my “Catholic” brethren) to have voted for a ticket which:
1) promotes an intrinsic evil (abortion) in the U.S. and elsewhere
2) enables and legitimizes disordered behavior (“LGBT”) at the expense of the family
3) drives toward replacing the free practice of religion with a dominating State?

This is a sign of something definitely out-of-whack.

Let’s go back to the so-called “Christian right.” The label implies that this group has become extreme in its views. If this were accurate, they would be expected to push unconstitutional laws like mandatory church attendance for all Americans. This has never been part of their agenda. They might try to legislate the return to closing stores on Sundays in order to “keep holy the Lord’s day.” They could attempt to levy mandatory donations to churches or charitable organizations as a tax in a similar way the Administration was able to convince the Supreme Court to save one aspect of the HHS mandate last June. The “Christian right” has not attempted to do anything like this.

The “Christian right” passionately believes that “good” should be accomplished, but at the lowest possible level. The Christian looks to the federal government only when all other means have failed. In other words, the government should only be involved in helping people to do those things which they cannot do for themselves. (The Catholic Church has a term for this: “subsidiarity.” The site for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says: “The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions, yet larger institutions have essential responsibilities when the more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity, meet human needs and advance the common good.”) Therefore, it does not mean, as Obama’s supporters charge, that the “Christian right” believes in neglecting the disadvantaged.

The “Christian right” also does not believe that something must be condoned and accepted as inevitable just because it’s legal. This includes an array of actions such as: discontinuing retirees’ health insurance, allowing speculative financial tools to be used which line the speculators’ pockets and cause hardship to millions, killing the unborn, same sex so-called marriage, etc. The “Christian right” is just as much a defender of “the little guy” as any other voting bloc because this IS the little guy. A quick look at the voting pattern of rural areas will attest to this.

So what is so confusing or dangerous about white Christians or the “Christian right?” Perhaps “right” in this case doesn’t stand for an extremely conservative position (as opposed to “left” or liberal). Maybe it’s really a matter of right versus wrong…. a very sensitive area for those desperately trying to ignore their consciences.